The star chamber that took down a premier

The Liberal Party has suddenly lost a five year political advantage in New South Wales, and there are likely to be more ramifications from ICAC than the resignation of Barry O'Farrell, writes Quentin Dempster.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales is turning into a subversive force.

To be 'subversive' in this context means to overthrow, overturn or upset the way government business is done in this jurisdiction.

Such is its current power through various tactics and coercive techniques, there is now a backlash. Because of this, the ICAC and its investigators cannot afford to make any mistakes.

All the circumstances surrounding the resignation of NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell on Wednesday, after he dug himself into an evidentiary hole under oath, will be trawled through. Some news reports made it look like O'Farrell resigned only because he did not declare an expensive gift - a bottle of Grange - from a lobbyist. But there is more to it than that.

At a glance

ICAC events amount to an unprecedented institutional and political challenge to the State of New South Wales

Incoming premier Mike Baird also has questions to answer about his relationship with Nick Di Girolamo

A Baird government must commit itself to implementing David Ipp QC's reform recommendations delivered late last year

Corruption does not stop at the NSW border: momentum is likely to build for a federal corruption commission

Just back from China with Prime Minister Tony Abbott, O'Farrell and his lawyer John Agius SC were trying to check the record. O'Farrell told the ICAC when he was recalled on Wednesday (after he'd announced his resignation) that first he had to answer questions about cases of wine, bottles of wine and then one bottle. He went into the witness box on Tuesday and gave the same answer on the Grange he'd given by text message to the Telegraph's Andrew Clennell on March 6. He had no recollection of the Grange. (Someone had tipped off Clennell to ask the premier about this in March).

The ICAC's counsel assisting, Geoffrey Watson SC, had already declared there were no allegations of corruption affecting O'Farrell but they needed to interpose him as a witness after Nick Di Girolamo, former chief executive of Australian Water Holdings, said under oath that he had organised this expensive gift to be delivered to O'Farrell's Roseville home. Apart from saying he and his wife Rosemary were certain they did not receive the Grange, O'Farrell also declared he could not recollect a 9.20pm (April 20 2011) telephone call logged from his mobile to Di Girolamo.

On Tuesday night the Grange was a 'mystery' after both Di Girolamo and O'Farrell had given evidence under oath. On Wednesday morning Di Girolamo produced to his lawyer, then to the ICAC and then to O'Farrell via Agius the handwritten thank you note and fountain-pen addressed envelope. Confronted with this O'Farrell fell on his sword, called a 10am press conference, and resigned the premiership.

Back in the witness box, he repeated his evidence of having no recollection of the Grange but had to confirm it was his handwriting on the thank you note.

Significantly Watson SC declared that he had not set out to ambush O'Farrell by some mean tactic. The hand written note was not from the holdings of the ICAC. Di Girolamo had gone home and found it in his papers on Tuesday night.

Like most players in the Liberal party, Mike Baird will have to answer questions about his relationship with Di Girolamo and his role in the appointment of Di Girolamo to the board of the State Water Corporation.

Di Girolamo and former minister Chris Hartcher, under investigation in the next ICAC inquiry, denied they were the source of Clennell's March 6 inquiry.

Mike Baird, 46, O'Farrell's Treasurer since the change of government in 2011, is the next premier of NSW.

Like most players in the Liberal party, he will have to answer questions about his relationship with Di Girolamo and his role in the appointment of Di Girolamo to the board of the State Water Corporation when there were concerns over Di Girolamo's qualifications for such a post.

All these events and the powers of ICAC, which is a creature of an Act of the NSW parliament, amount to an unprecedented institutional and political challenge to the State of New South Wales.

Already there are Supreme Court actions on ICAC findings from affected parties and investors in the coal mining industry. They lost fortunes when the O'Farrell government revoked their 'tainted' exploration licences. These cases will play out later this year. Already one case, apprehended bias, has survived a High Court challenge.

And at the moment the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, with added specialist resources, is assessing admissible evidence handed to it by ICAC investigators from last year's inquiries into the relationship between Labor figures Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald (since expelled).

Because outgoing ICAC commissioner David Ipp QC, a former Supreme Court judge, was so insistent that a 'criminal conspiracy' existed between these two and that a prosecution would result in a conviction on existing case law precedents, we are expecting Obeid and Macdonald to be charged any day now.

But until they are and the rule of law is applied to what has been alleged to be corruption on a colonial Rum Corps scale, the ICAC continues as a star chamber cheered on by the public and the media.

The latest public investigations, Credo and Spicer, expose influence peddling and political slush funding involving office bearers and fund raising functionaries at the highest levels of the NSW Liberal Party - Arthur Sinodinis, Paul Nicolaou, Michael Photios and Nicholas Di Girolamo among others. They expose an alleged attempt to siphon Sydney Water's customer cash flows in north-west Sydney to a consortium of vested interests via an entity - Australian Water Holdings - under the guise of a 'public private partnership'.

It has emerged that 12 months after Di Girolamo had the Grange delivered to the O'Farrell residence in April 2011, he was registered as a lobbyist for Kores, the South Korean coal company which was seeking to develop its massive Wallarah 2 long wall mine under a contentious catchment in the central coast.*

O'Farrell had famously told the locals in 2009 that there would be no mining in the catchment - "No ifs, no buts ... a guarantee". But in government Kores got the nod from the director general of Planning, Sam Haddad, and a Planning Assessment Commission is now merit assessing the mine on social, environmental and economic criteria. The locals are furious and feel betrayed.

Some of the state's business shakers found their private conversations replayed on the nightly TV news. Any half bright skullduggers seeking to peddle influence now will not be operating on traceable mobile phones.

After years of relative somnolence and exposure of low level malfeasance in government agencies and the occasional expenses rorting by MPs, the ICAC started to confront high level corruption involving ministerial discretion from 2010.

Its evidentiary leads into Obeid Corporation, the focus of its current multi-party investigations, started from discovery of the Obeid family's extensive interests - coal, water, harbour foreshore property and marinas - arising from Moses Obeid's contract dispute litigated by the City of Sydney Council over an Obeid power pole scheme. Many of the businesses were reliant on government concessions.

When the government looked like changing in 2011, trenches were dug, and influence was peddled to targeted individuals on the other side. Raids with search warrants, subpoenaed telephone records and compulsory in camera interrogations have enabled ICAC investigators and their analysts to amass a significant amount of documentary evidence. Although the ICAC used its telephone intercept powers during its Operation Jasper investigation into the Obeid-Macdonald coal mining 'conspiracy', this tactic is now of limited use. Some of the state's business shakers found their private conversations, with colourful expletives and profanities, replayed on the nightly TV news. Any half bright skullduggers seeking to peddle influence now will not be operating on traceable mobile phones.

The latest investigations are expected to have far reaching impacts on the NSW Liberal Party as well as the Labor Party, still lying politically unconscious on the mat. The Liberal Party has lost a five year political advantage in NSW with the allegations that its high officials were willing participants in an audacious strategy to scam millions from the public utility Sydney Water.

When he goes to the state election in March next year the new premier and his party will be in a defensive and contrite position.

The Baird government will be trying to get on the front foot. But to do this it will have to commit itself to implementing David Ipp QC's reform recommendations delivered late last year. They include amendment to the ICAC Act to make the NSW Ministerial Code of Conduct applicable under that Act.

This will correct a deficiency identified when former Liberal premier Nick Greiner won his Supreme Court appeal against then ICAC Commissioner Ian Temby QC's corrupt conduct finding arising from the so called Metherell Affair in 1992. (Greiner had appointed dissident Liberal Terry Metherell to a public service position to create a politically advantageous bearpit vacancy). The court of appeal determined that while an MP's conduct could be examined by the ICAC, a minister's could not.

If the Ipp reform goes through it will change the way ministers make decisions, particularly if under various Acts they are deemed to be the 'consent authority' on contracts, concessions and planning instruments where, with the stroke of a pen, they can enrich an applicant. If a minister's discretion can be externally monitored by the ICAC, the minister and his/her officials will have to be able to demonstrate to the ICAC the processes by which the decision was reached. Issues like unfair advantage or special access to lobbyists and party donors will then come in to play. ICAC investigations where corrupt conduct has been found to have occurred demonstrate that ministers are not always 'honourable' in the discharge of their duties to act at all times in the public interest.

Perhaps the Canberra press gallery should start asking our national political leaders if they will establish a national ICAC as a corruption counter measure.

Former ICAC commissioner John Mant says this reform is overdue given what has been exposed, resulting in public cynicism about and distrust in government itself.

If the reform is achieved in New South Wales and what is now broadly known as 'NSW disease' is at last confronted, there should be momentum to extend the ICAC investigative model to other jurisdictions including the Commonwealth Government. Corruption does not stop at the NSW border. It is likely to exist wherever ministerial discretion and vested interests converge. Given that the Liberal Party as well as the Labor Party is under investigation and with public confidence in government clearly at stake, perhaps the Canberra press gallery should start asking our national political leaders if they will establish a national ICAC as a corruption counter measure. Watch them bag the ICAC as a star chamber and duck for cover.

In his 1989 report, Queensland's Tony Fitzgerald QC, declined to recommend an ICAC as a standing solution to that state's endemic political and police corruption. He recommended an 'independent' Criminal Justice Commission as part of a broader response and not an 'autonomous' ICAC model with its potential for abuse of its coercive powers. The NSW ICAC was established in 1988 after years of folklore about the political corruption infecting the state from the Askin era through to the Wran era.

Twenty-five years later it seems to be emerging that the ICAC's inquisitorial model - with the educative benefit of public hearings with websites for daily transcripts and exhibits, but with its procedures justiciable before the Supreme and High courts - could be the more effective model.

There are months and years of challenges ahead as the NSW ICAC takes on corruption at the highest levels of government. The 'prize' is the restoration of public trust in government.

In a recent issue, The Economist magazine exposed 'cronyism' on a worldwide index where networks of influence, oligarchs and easily-manipulated governments systematically undermined the public interest.

It was pleasing to see that Australia did not rate a mention on that index. The pain we are going through at the moment will help to keep us off any future index.

* Editor's clarification (April 22, 2014): An earlier version of this article said that Di Girolamo was registered as a lobbyist for Kores "soon" after delivering the bottle of Grange. It was 12 months. Di Girolamo's formal association with Kores lasted from March 2012 to March 2013.

Comments (259)

Comments for this story are closed.

Dave:

17 Apr 2014 3:26:02pm

Walkley quality stuff, Mr Dempster.

And in 20 years time, the NSW ICAC may be regarded around the country as a defining force in having lifted the tone of Australian politics. It certainly will have significantly changed the culture of the lobbying industry.

Colmery:

17 Apr 2014 3:57:02pm

I'm a Dempster fan myself Dave, but before we slip him a Walkley for this, I'd like clarification on the use of the term "star chamber".

I'd always assumed it was a pejorative term due to the corruption that eventually caused the historic entity to become a blunt instrument of injustice. The ICAC, which I'm also a fan of, was slammed by an incoherent and clearly emotional Gerard Henderson on Lateline last night.

graazt:

17 Apr 2014 4:06:59pm

I think the author made some criticisms about the late discovery of that crucial bit of evidence that brought O'Farrell undone (the thank you note). And some seemingly unlearned ambush tactics by the counsel assisting (calling someone in as a witness not under suspicion and then going for the jugular).

That perhaps ICAC's recent efforts were a little more inquisitorial than they should be and perhaps didn't accord the witnesses natural justice to the degree they should.

But don't think he's arguing ICAC is overall a bad idea because of that.

JohnC:

17 Apr 2014 4:41:40pm

@graazt: This tangled mess will take some time to resolve itself. Who spilt the beans about the bottle of plonk and if it was Di Girolamo what was his motive in also providing ICAC with the thank you note. Sounds like a plot to unseat O'Farrell and in so doing take the heat off the Obeid family. Call in Sherlock Holmes. The further this goes the murkier it gets.

Mitor the Bold:

Sounds like someone kept the note for a rainy day. It was raining on Tuesday and there was only one umbrella and it looked like Bazza had it. Now we know that it's not only lobbyists who can get wet.

BOF has either behaved foolishly or corruptly. The plot to unseat him was engineered by himself - if he'd refused the wine; accepted it and registered it; accepted it, failed to register it but then remembered it when asked about it, he'd still be Premier.

People who file thank you notes as evidence do so for nefarious reasons. He must have believed he got something in return.

Peter:

17 Apr 2014 11:30:38pm

He might have asked someone for advice along the lines of I've stuffed up what do I do? The Liberal Party both state and national might have a strategy of broad denial of any dealings with Di Girolamo (see statement along those lines from Abbott) and thus advised O'Farrell to do the same. The real mistake O'Farrell made was not mentioning the note to whoever it was he asked for advice.

This strategy would have been devised originally to protect Sidonis. This explains why so many in the Liberal Party including Abbott are so unnerved by the events of the last few days. They've seen how weak their position is in the face of simple evidence and Di Girolamo probably still has the receipts from play lunch in kindergarten.

the nose:

18 Apr 2014 6:20:07am

Mitor, I could not have put it better myself, Nick Griener apparently, does not see anything wrong with accepting gifts from lobbyists, when you have a former premier justifying this practice which encourages corruption , you know the system has been rotten to the core for a long time.I recall many years ago reading about housing commission homes in NSW being sold for half their value to a developer, who promptly sold them a month later for more the a 100% profit, and this rip off, hardly raised eyebrows in the NSW parliament. Unfortunately this practice has spilled over into Federal politics.I would like to see a royal commission into expense claims by MPs, wouldn't that have them quaking in their shoes.

Troy:

17 Apr 2014 8:15:36pm

What a stark difference in the ethical standards? Gillard remained PM with the support of a convicted fraudster who stole tens of thousands of dollars from the lowest paid workers in the country. ("...I have full confidence in the Member for Dobell...") Barry O'Farrell resigns for not declaring a gift of a bottle of wine. Such starking difference in the honesty and ethics between the two parties.

Mitor the Bold:

18 Apr 2014 7:23:38am

"Gillard remained PM with the support of a convicted fraudster "

No she didn't. She remained PM with the support of a man accused of fraud, but not convicted. I think maybe you are confused about timing. Anyway, does one forgive the other? Are rapists forgivable as long as they're not murderers?

Liam:

18 Apr 2014 8:16:32am

Troy, I have little faith in pollies of all stripes. The stark difference I see between the parties is that Thompson was happy to scam tens of thousands, while it appears Sinodinos was prepared to be involved in a scam that would gain him tens of millions. A matter of scale.

BkDw:

Dempster writes 'there is more to it than that', even though he has not elaborated any further. Those pesky defamation laws may be restricting free speech here.

The recommendation for a National anti-corruption force is a sound one. Government for the 'mates' is out of control at a federal level.

Downer's diplomatic reward after his collusion with Woodside, and the Tasmanian timber industry lobbyists attempt to overturn the Tasmanian Forests Agreement with the blessing of Abbott would be two worthwhile places to start. Milne and Brown's role in the collapse of Gunn's would be an inquiry of interest, the Badgery's Creek Airport is shaping up as another.

Politicians corruptly wielding power need to be exposed and eradicated.

Tom1:

18 Apr 2014 11:58:43am

Troy: Of course you are factually wrong as Mitor points out. But if comparing the deeds of Thompson with those of the Liberals now in trouble gives you some sort of comfort so be it. Most have moved on from Thompson, and corruption in the Liberal Party is keeping us entertained.

Arthur:

Tom1:

18 Apr 2014 11:51:40am

JohnC. Certainly would be a plot for Miss Marple: Let us face it, no one could write BOF's replies to the Commission for him. With hindsight he could have avoided the dire consequences of resignation. If it was a plot it was not well thought out, and succeeded only because B. left himself no wriggle room.

He got badly caught out with the thank you note and maybe he got out early before more things comes to the surface. The sword O'farrell fell on was not ICAC's, it was his own. Attempting to blame the court for an indvidual's mistakes could be regarded as a contempt for the court and smacks of political bias.

Fred:

18 Apr 2014 1:54:58pm

Yes. 'Star Chamber' - over-used expression. Cannot see how it applies to current ICAC with the transcipts, media, crowds all involved in the transparent application of due process. from the web (somewhere:star chamber proceedings n. any judicial or quasi-judicial action, trial, or hearing which so grossly violates standards of "due process" that a party appearing in the proceedings (hearing or trial) is denied a fair hearing. The term comes from a large room with a ceiling decorated with stars in which secret hearings of the privy council and judges met to determine punishment for disobedience of the proclamations of King Henry VIII of Great Britain (1509-1547). The high-handed, unfair, predetermined judgments, which sent the accused to The Tower of London or to the chopping block, made "star chamber" synonymous with unfairness and illegality from the bench.

Malcolm:

17 Apr 2014 4:13:36pm

Yes good article but I draw the line at Star Chamber. That term will only give some spurious argument to the desire of corrupt politicians to escape its investigations. I suspect that the rapidity of Mr O'Farrell's resignation may conceal more than a forgotten bottle of wine because if it was that alone a simple apology to the ICAC would have sufficed and probably have attracted little criticism as everyone has memory lapses.

But the real problem lies at the heart of the Liberal party which seems to have turned a convenient blind eye to AWH which was not exactly reticent about its plans, office holders and how it spent its money. ICAC disposed of Sinodinos who seemed to be, for a while, a poster boy for those Liberals arguing that we needed more sensible chaps like him in the Parliament when he has demonstrated that his reputation for intelligence and common sense seems to have been a trifle exaggerated.

I wonder how high the AWH corruption extends and how many other Liberals are a bit nervous at the moment.

aelious:

17 Apr 2014 6:36:11pm

Malcolm..note what we have learnt about AWH is but the tip of the AWH iceberg..stay tuned as our august new Premier's snout in trough reign may well be brief. This is a man who likes other folks money to flow his way in donations get the drift?...the man who made a $1 billion budget "error" that provided cover for ideological spending cuts & public asset sales...a "error" that when revealed was neither examined by the MSM nor were the cut/sales stopped. Nope this little guy has form big time. But AWH is but one of a field of funny money icebergs floating about..watch and see.Of course it was not the MSM that searched this out & without the ICAC youse punters would be still way in the dark..the way the real government & it's MSM wants it....the "joke" was meant to go on under the public radar as it has for decades!

BT:

17 Apr 2014 8:53:52pm

Spot on Malcolm, Obeid seems to have been acting as a double agent of sorts, who was happy to play both sides of fence - not a true ALP advocate. I don't think anyone could have remained so undetected and unchallenged to have avoided scrutiny with so many connections across party lines as it seems! The high up Liberals on boards of companies and lobby groups seemed to be having a pretty good time of it while Obeid remained active in an ALP government.

Ben the lawyer:

'NSW ICAC may be regarded around the country as a defining force in having lifted the tone of Australian politics.'

I don't know - ICAC doesn't have a good track record of bringing about information that leads to convictions, despite its trampling of the rule of law.

At the end of the day, all we have to show for ICAC is a premier who resigned and was then found not guilty of anything, and a premier who resigned because of a bottle of wine.

It may well be that you think the above results justifies the erosion of what should be considered sancrosanct, but I'm not sure. I would, for example, prefer that Obeid was never charged, if it meant that we didn't create these situations where the normal processes, rights and fundamentals of our justice system were done away with (I say that despite Obeid being on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me).

graazt:

17 Apr 2014 6:38:27pm

"Not without ruining careers first (see Nick Greiner). "

The parliamentary no-confidence motion might have had something to do with the outcome for Greiner as well. Not to mention he's career hasn't exactly been ruined. Still comfortably ensconed in the apparatus of the state. As well as being on several private boards of course.

O'Farrell didn't have to resign.

"You can't sue ICAC."

OK, thanks. Doesn't seem like there's a properly equitable remedy then and if so, that's a problem.

"I just try to look past that to the consequences though."

Yes, it's not just for entertainment value that there's much popular support this institution. Ultimately it's transparency in government that motivates much of ICACs appeal.

And despite your claims it doesn't have a good track record in bringing criminal convictions, that's not its core benefit in my view. Establishing legal corruption, and revealing behaviour the public may consider unscrupulous are complementary goals; it's doing very well in the latter exercise.

Gary:

17 Apr 2014 6:29:29pm

Again Ben is it not better that crimes be identified and then prosecuted with all the rigor of a legal process?The police ask questions of a suspect should they not investigate because it may embarrass someone or because it may uncover evidence of wrong doing?It is a good thing that crime is uncovered especially when it is crimes involving millions of taxpayer money is it not?

Baker Boy:

17 Apr 2014 6:32:57pm

Oh pleeeze! We know from your partisan posts that you're a Lib lackey and that you're just cranky that it was a Liberal premier who resigned.

As for "legal principal's"; what legal principal are you talking about? O'Farrell didn't get sacked, or arrested, or put on the rack. ICAC merely pointed out that he said he did not receive an expensive bottle of wine when in fact he had received it. When his error was pointed out, he resigned! A bit of an over reaction if you ask me. But I completely fail to see where is the legal principal is? Perhaps as a lawyer you could enlighten me.

the nose:

R Supwood:

18 Apr 2014 10:21:49am

For your information, legal principles as we know them descend from the Roman concept of Imperium, where we establish power to enforce law, the law being the product of enforcement, even conquest. Might is right, or becomes the basis for law. I've lved through the time of the law of Hitler, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Gaddafi, Saddam, Mugabe, etc., and have no doubt about my position of compulsory obedience on pain of death or incarceration if I had been a resident or subject. Law is made, broken, remade, abused, sidetracked, ignored, all to suit human wilfulness, including that of the law creators. Cromwell and Napoleon would have agreed.

Gary:

17 Apr 2014 6:24:39pm

As I understand it ICAC cannot charge an individual but it can recommend that a crime if committed to be investigated.If in the course of it's investigation a crime is found then the normal legal process can at the option of the office of public prosecution be implemented.So far Obeid has not been charged but if further information is uncovered may well be. Sididonis looks as dirty as any but so far no charges have been made I imagine that the Tax office may be interested in the revelations of vast (taxpayer) funds being diverted to the LNP but there seems to be a reluctance to prosecute Politicians as evidenced by misappropriation of expenses that seems to be rampant (separation of power? maybe)

Andrew:

17 Apr 2014 6:41:13pm

O'Farrell didn't resign "because of a bottle of wine" and it is absolutely appalling that his behaviour is being lauded by Tony Abbott as an example of high personal integrity.

O'Farrell resigned because the note suggested that he perjured himself before ICAC. He didn't deny recalling whether he had received a bottle of wine or not (which would have been the more conventional, safer form of lie). He emphatically denied receiving the bottle of wine, a lie engineered to preserve political distance between himself and AWH and all the grubs who have used the safer "I cannot recall" line before ICAC in recent times.

The lie was the most politically advantageous answer O'Farrell could have given. Unfortunately for him, it was proven false almost immediately, and so his position was untenable. Had he just admitted to receiving the bottle of wine or claimed "I cannot recall", there would have been no cause for resignation or a possible perjury charge.

The Premier did not resign "because of a bottle of wine" but because he was caught lying under oath for political advantage.

Pegaso:

17 Apr 2014 10:24:28pm

Tony Abbott would also say George Pell was of impeccable character and a man of high principles.Actually O'Farrell would be the better person in my view.Tony Abbott was just rehearsing his lines for when he is forced to give Sinodinos the chop, in effect O'Farrell's decision has forced his hand.

Mitor the Bold:

"all we have to show for ICAC is a premier... who resigned because of a bottle of wine."

Nonsense - he resigned because he lied under oath, not because of a bottle of wine. Similarly, Marcus Einfeld didn't go to jail because of a speeding fine.

Forget that it was wine - let's imagine instead that it was $3000 in $20 notes in a brown envelope and that BOF thanked DiG for it and then denied the incident ever happened, under oath.

The fact that was a bottle of wine mutes the more relevant fact that it was given to curry favour - or worse. No-one, surely not even the Libs' front line of pom-pom girls on this forum, can seriously believe that anyone would forget a birthdate-matched bottle of Grange that one subsequently hand-wrote a thank-you note for?

Anyone in the ministry who goes from average to multimillionaire on the back of government contracts and concessions should immediately be investigated. In fact, they should not be allowed to pursue profit in this way at all.

kenj:

17 Apr 2014 8:04:14pm

"I would, for example, prefer that Obeid was never charged, if it meant that we didn't create these situations where the normal processes, rights and fundamentals of our justice system were done away with."

.... and I suppose you don't mind that thousands of dollars of public money goes missing at the hands of crooks, and that those abuses, if left unchallenged, will likely grow into millions? Is that what you are saying? That you would prefer the public to be robbed blind rather than putting a stop to corruption by what most people (even lawyers) regard as fair and reasonable judicial means?

BT:

17 Apr 2014 8:43:27pm

I think at the heart of it Obeid is obviously a greedy, belligerent, conniving saboteur who infiltrated the first political organisation that had access to power that could get him and his family wealthy deals and needed a like minded sidekick (Ian McDonald). He has not acted in any manner in accordance with a party that fundamentally believes in the shared prosperity for all. He befits a political organisation that prefers the divide and conquer dynamic of an un-contained free market system. I'm sure the conservative L-NP is the only political force that subscribes to this view - are you saying that because Obeid was in the ALP that he is at the opposite end of the political spectrum to Liberals?? I think the ALP need a massive overhaul of pre-selection and Rudd was the first to make a move at least - I think Bill will further the reforms and ensure quacks like Obeid, McDonald and Bullock are the last of a bad bunch - for the ALP at least!! Maybe more Liberals will be exposed than a few rogue ALP'ers.

jennbrad:

18 Apr 2014 11:51:30am

I don't see that convictions are the only outcome you want from ICAC. The exposure of behaviour and individuals with their noses in the trough, regardless of whether the behaviour is "criminal" is an important outcome. Many of these people will lose much, including their reputations, as a result. I just think punishment can come in many guises, and those found out in this process deserve the full disdain and disapproval of their fellow citizens. And preferably being shunned and never allowed to do something similar in future.

I also think that exposure of the way in which AWH operated - as a prize money ripping off scam - enables consideration of how to prevent such gross malfeasance in future. If one can, considering there are always going to be greedy persons seeking power to feed their ambitions.

As the new premier is firmly in favour of more privatisation, setting systems to do this in an ethical way will be an interesting challenge.

Dave:

17 Apr 2014 5:10:05pm

It is an increasingly attractive option Paul01. Funding democracy through our taxes at a cost of a couple of bucks per head per election does seem like a better deal than simply selling it off to the highest bidders as currently occurs.

Sir Robert of Lindsay:

17 Apr 2014 4:47:15pm

I'm tipping NSW's ICAC is a dead man walking.

Now it has bitten it's creator twice, the born-to-rule will move to water down it's powers and ultimately disband it.

If all those lost years under Howard taught us anything it was you don't do ANYTHING the Libs don't like if you want a long term career. Abbot has already shown he will follow this same route of purging the undesirables.

These thugs have long memories and are always willing to wait for the electoral cycle to fall in their favor. They don't have to wait in NSW.

Desert Woman:

17 Apr 2014 5:55:48pm

A few years ago I would probably have agreed with you. However, I think the social mood is changing and people are no longer prepared to put up with all the nonsense from these thugs. They are regularly documenting criminal and unjust behaviour by 'authorities' such as police and are much more cynical about the behaviour of all pollies and corporate types. Any govt that tried to water down ICAC would immediately come under massive suspicion no matter how they dressed it up. The Abbott govt may end up being the best friend the forces of democratization ever had and the NSW Libs would do well to keep their distance from it.

mortan:

17 Apr 2014 6:04:02pm

Thugs strong words I thought all the thugs were in the union movement and Labor's faceless back stabbers now you tell me the LNP are thugs. Perhaps politics is all thugs and devious back stabbing rat bags. Time for state governments to go I think.

Gary:

17 Apr 2014 6:34:10pm

The attacks on the ABC are evidence that what you are saying is true.Queensland has already knobbled their ICAC and there are moves to muzzle it in Victoria.That only leaves the ABC as a source of truth available to the public no wonder the con-servatives want it gone.

gbe:

17 Apr 2014 5:38:20pm

This raises the question are there any honest politicians at all are they all just tainted crooks noses in the trough greedy parasites thinking only of themselves. Why vote at all if this is all there is to lead us.

rabbie:

17 Apr 2014 6:10:35pm

Yes, there are many honest politicians. You could vote the Greens. I believe that those on the left of Labor are trustworthy too. Most of the corruption seems to be on the right, whether it be the Labor right or the Liberal right (where Abbott stands).

Tom1:

18 Apr 2014 12:24:31pm

gbe: Imagine a new pollie. He does a short trip away, and is provided with food and accommodation. When he gets back a TA form is put in front of him to sign. He says, "But it did not cost me anything". He is told, "You are entitled to it". From then on it gets easy. Even Abbott can make money from doing community good. How many of them find it so easy that they can include their wives in a trip across Australia to visit a property?

ICAC is essential to keep them on their toes for their big misdeeds, but the sense of entitlement seems to come with the job, and perhaps not wanting to be the odd man out.

Pegaso:

17 Apr 2014 10:14:46pm

Memories come back of the Fitzgerald (I Think it was)Inquiry that sorted out the Queensland Conservatives.We have known about the Obeids,what we need to uncover are those lurking in Boardrooms and the influence peddlers on the Conservative side.Im sorry for O'Farrell he was a Malcolm Turnbull type Conservative far more acceptable than Tony Abbott.We now have a Premier with strong religious convictions and from previous comments, questionable views on homosexuality.We hope his personal views will not intrude on his Premiership.The other States need an equivalent to the ICAC, not weakened versions.Enjoyed your ABC24 contributions on Wednesday and this piece Quentin

Brian Francis:

18 Apr 2014 4:02:12pm

DaveIn 20 years time about all that will be known from this time is that 'Grange' took a hike in sales and price. If you think it will change lobbying then it will only be by name, perhaps being referred to as advocates rather than lobbyists.Mr.Dempster may well have his Walkley by then and the left and the right of politics will still be at each other - now that's progress.Mr.O'Farrell may have also served his second full term as Senator O'Farrell - foreign minister.

As for "star chamber", your pejorative slight is more applicable to the secretive cabals known as paliamentary cabinets. Look at the big fuss when Mr Carr dared reveal to Australian voters what the people who supposedly represent us get up to.

Do your concerns over ICAC suggest that you too are on the gravy train?

LeeW:

18 Apr 2014 1:38:22am

Jungle Boy; Mr Dempster writes

"But until they are and the rule of law is applied to what has been alleged to be corruption on a colonial Rum Corps scale, the ICAC continues as a star chamber cheered on by the public and the media."

"Watch them bag the ICAC as a star chamber and duck for cover."

"Twenty-five years later it seems to be emerging that the ICAC's inquisitorial model - with the educative benefit of public hearings with websites for daily transcripts and exhibits, but with its procedures justiciable before the Supreme and High courts - could be the more effective model."

I think you have missed the point of Dempster's use of the term "star chamber." I read the article as a supportive piece for ICAC with the point being made that if NO charges are laid due to the findings of these hearings then, and only then, can we truly call this inquiry a "star chamber" as secrecy and not exposure would be the outcome.

I, like yourself, am everyday cheering on this "star chamber" with the hope that prosecutions and jail terms ensue for those found to have broken the law.

The call for a national ICAC style body is one that I would whole heartedly be support of. I live in Queensland and the Crime and Misconduct Commission (Qld's ICAC equivalent) is under attack from Campbell Newman and his LNP cronies. For what purpose? Well we can only guess, can't we.

I for one wish we can start the inevitable corruption hearings into the Newman government now, so as to cleanse our own states hallowed halls as quickly as possible.

To the editor -- the sensationalist headliner here does not truly reflect the articles content, in my humble opinion.

Snufkin:

18 Apr 2014 8:02:14am

I didn't interpret Quentin Dempster's article that way, JB. He is simply looking at the bigger picture which necessarily includes an honest scrutiny of the investigative process. In fact, I would say from the overall tone of this article, Mr Dempster is likely to be a strong supporter of the ICAC. I heartily agree with your comments about cabinet. As for Carr, who provided a character reference for Obeid in a case he brought (and won) against a Fairfax paper some years ago, about allegations on payoffs and the construction of a sporting facility, he was/is also part of a political system which I think we would both agree needs much more transparency and accountability.Have a good one.

harry:

17 Apr 2014 3:38:32pm

What if the note on the wrapped gift stated that it was a vintage bottle from '59. If he took a bunch of gifts and shoved them in a cupboard to clear the room they were being shoved into.It would allow him to know it was wine, that it was from '59 and write the note of thanks to Girolamo without specifically knowing it was Grange or its value and the lack of specific recollection.Her received a lot of gifts on becoming Premier and it could have easily been lost in the mess.

It would be nice to see any other thank you notes from that time, I expect they followed a similar format. It would also be interesting if in a few days time Barry turns up an unwrapped boxed wine bottle from an obscure cupboard in the garage.It would mean that his lack of recollection would make sense as would his lack of a declaration of the gift since he didn't actually know its value. It would make the whole episode quite a farce.

It's not such an improbable set of circumstances, and I could see it happening at my house if I'd been inundated with gifts and was busy. Many of our wedding presents stayed in a cupboard unwrapped till we moved houses. Barry wasn't much of a drinker, so it wasn't an item he'd even need to unwrap, and the sender would have likely drawn attention to the vintage less it go unnoticed.

harry:

17 Apr 2014 4:55:26pm

It's hardly a "magical hypothesis". It's how it works at my place.This is a normal man in a normal household. he doesn't have a large retinue of staff attending him, or a lot of room to keep items in. You get an influx of stuff and you start shoving it into anywhere you can so that the house can keep functioning.I have no interest in booze, so I don't even open the stuff. Apparently Barry wasn't much of a drinker.It neatly explains why his recollection was so poor without anything other than the normal way a household works.

Gary:

17 Apr 2014 6:38:26pm

If it was just a bottle of wine BOF could just have apologised to ACAC and I am sure all would have been forgiven but instead he chose to resign implying something bigger was about to unfold and he knew it. One would not resign over a minor oversight.

Andrew:

Except O'Farrell did not resign because he "did not recall" like all the other ICAC witnesses claim. He resigned because he lied and absolutely denied receiving the bottle of wine.

This is not a case of someone forgetting to declare a bottle of wine. This is a case of someone deliberately lying under oath and claiming they hadn't received a bottle of wine because they didn't want to be politically associated with the gift giver. I am fairly sure it is a totally dissimilar situation to your wedding gifts.

Snufkin:

18 Apr 2014 8:34:44am

Well there a few different ways to look at it perhaps. If BOF knew for a fact that he HAD been given the '59 grange, was he then simply gambling that it couldn't be proved? A gamble with potentially very significant consequences, and one in which any benefits were maybe likely to be less significant than the possible damage. So why wouldn't you just say "I don't remember that?" Some allege that by outright denial, he was trying to totally "distance" himself. Why was he so confident? On the other hand it is at least possible he genuinely was no longer aware of the gift. Personally I find it unlikely, but it remains a possibility. In any case he did the "right thing" (politically) by resigning, while I also agree with those who say he was left with little choice. On the other hand, australian political history is replete with leaders who cling to power no matter what the circumstances. Most need to be prised out of office with a heavy duty crowbar. Bjelke Petersen for example.Have a good one.

I think I think:

18 Apr 2014 12:42:10pm

Harry, as a normal person I can guarantee I would not forget a gift worth three thousand dollars from a supposed stranger. It must surely prove I am incompetent and unfit to run a state, were I to, no? Keep defending the indefensible, it makes your argument even more clown like. For the rest of us, we want better than a corrupt, lying amnesiac running NSW.

harry:

18 Apr 2014 1:49:59pm

Being unable to read sufficiently well to realise that I have explained multiple times that he didn't need to unwrap the gift and hence wouldn't have known it was worth $3000 makes your argument completely clown like, but not unexpected.

DiogenesNT:

18 Apr 2014 5:24:40pm

Hi harry, I think you re trying to over simplify the matter by writing 'this is a normal man in a normal household'. I am pretty sure he was the Premier of NSW at the time an that, by definition, does not make him 'a normal man' or make it 'a normal household'.

You are dipping into 'what ifs' when you start introducing 'It would also be interesting if in a few days time Barry turns up an unwrapped boxed wine bottle from an obscure cupboard in the garage'. If my auntie were a man she would be my uncle. So what??

You are being an apologist. No one forced Barry O'Farrell to resign. In fact, he was not even asked to resign. He had not been charged with anything at the time. He took it upon himself. That is the end of it.

aGuy:

18 Apr 2014 2:12:38pm

It sounds possible to me. You are a senior politician who gets many small gifts. Not knowing the value of wines or being very interested in them, you stow them away as quickly as possible, especially on your birthday when your family is present.

If you dont drink wine or properly read the note, you may have no idea of the value. Even the note does not say its worth which may not have been read instantly. I dont know what the difference between a $30 bottle and $3,000 is. Why should I assume a politician does when they could be more focused on their department?

Mark James:

17 Apr 2014 4:24:27pm

harry, perhaps if you job description specified, quite clearly, that you would be legally required to register your wedding gifts as a pecuniary interests, then you would not have put them in a cupboard and forgot about them?

harry:

17 Apr 2014 4:49:47pm

gee Mark, do you think he might have been busy in the fortnight after being elected and prior to cabinet being sworn in? I don't drink, so I wouldn't have thought that much of a bottle of plonk. Straight to the cupboard under the stairs and into the pile of emergency presents. Would have likely popped the tag and never unwrapped it.

jack:

17 Apr 2014 5:22:08pm

Except he wrote a thank you note. And if in your job description it says YOU MUST, then you should, no excuses. I like O'Farrell, but if you break the rules, you must accept the consequences, although as I posted elsewhere, a simple apology would have done for me, and we all could have moved on. I don't drink either, so I would probably have given the bottle on, and thought no more about it, but it would have appeared on my gifts received list if that was what was required. It's a pity that ICAC scalped such a promising premier.

harry:

17 Apr 2014 6:06:37pm

So? You read the note attached, it says something like "Congrats Barry, couldn't go past this vintage '59 to help you celebrate your victory"

So he writes a thank you note, he knows it is wine and the match to his DOB. And I'd guess the structure of that thank you would be similar to the rest of the notes he wrote, thanking the sender for their wider support in addition to the gift, pretty much exactly how I'd do it.

We elect ordinary people into office, they end up with the same logistical problems that ordinary people have after weddings, engagement parties etc. Lots of stuff and no time or place to deal with them. The timing of this gift is the issue, it wasn't a single out of the blue gift, it was delivered at a time of quite a lot of turmoil at the O'Farrell residence and at a time when BOF had very little time to deal with it.

harry:

17 Apr 2014 6:08:48pm

I should add that it only needs to appear on the register if it exceeds a certain value, if you didn't unwrap it, or know much about wine, you'd think it was a $70 bottle and not give it another thought.

Malcolm:

17 Apr 2014 6:42:11pm

Dear me Harry - that's a bit of a rather weak spin. I would think that the average pollie and reasonably proficient public person would know what Grange Hermitage was. Let's face it the Liberals and Labor are equally dirty with regard to AWH. One thing I will bet is that the AWH executive despite its demonstrated corruption will probably have enough friends in high (AKA the ones whose names didn't come up) to protect them from lengthy well deserved jail terms.

You do understand we are talking in this case about a conspiracy to defraud the public aren't you. Sinodinos' behaviour was naive and utterly bereft of common sense to say the least and as to his involvement in a criminal conspiracy then I think it should be tried before the courts - after all that's what happened to Thomson who all you Liberals were condemning so how about Sinodinos gets the same fair trial and the preparatory public humiliation.

harry:

17 Apr 2014 9:33:12pm

Seems you don't understand dates. Here's how they work, they are monotonically increasing, and so far noone has been able to travel backwards in time.Sinodinos became chairman many years after AWH won contracts from the Labor govt that Obeid was a member of, he has not been found to have acted corruptly nor was he involved in any of the activities that were being investigated. AWH won no contracts since the election of a Liberal govt. Former Labor NSW Treasurer became Chairman of AWH immediately after Sinodinos, so at the time he would have known even more than Sinodinos of the allegations around the company, do you believe he was "naive and utterly bereft of commonsense" and should be tried before the courts? Normally there is a actual charge regarding criminal behaviour, neither Costa or Sinodinos have had any allegations regarding criminal activities, let alone charges. That's totally different to Thomson, but I guess that's too subtle for you.

As I stated above, there was no need for him to have unwrapped the gift, as he said, he would have remembered if he did. All I have done is supply a simple and rather typical way that events could have unfolded that are consistent with his, and his wife's lack of recollection of events.

Malcolm:

18 Apr 2014 9:19:27am

And you Harry don't understand that being an apologist for crooks on both sides of politics is just that - an indication that you don't understand that apologies notwithstanding these people appear to have either acted in a criminal fashion or been too silly to recognize that what they were doing was criminal.

Sinodinos who was the poster boy for sensible smart Liberals turns out to be anything but that while the rest from Obeid to Di Girolamo appear to have known from the beginning they were in on the scam. Your claims that a busy man like Mr O'Farrell wouldn't have the time to open his free bottle of Grange sounds to me like special pleading - Mr O'Farrell may have had a lapse of memory or there may be deeper things yet to surface. I'd be wary of being an apologist when many things are yet to be revealed especially as Di Girolamo was a Liberal fundraiser which implies connections going back to before the last election. As it appears now AWH seems to the cursory glance to have been a business construct designed to funnel some funds into the Liberal Party and those funds were coming from some rather shonky business dealings.

Sinodinos' political career is scuppered because no matter what Abbott's opinions are he cannot come back in any senior position without being a magnet for well-founded attacks from the Opposition. The other things to consider concern just how many other state and federal Liberals are tainted considering that the political donations are applied widely. The ICAC enquiry was meant to go after Labor but in doing so it shone a light on the equally corrupt practices of the Liberals.

DiogenesNT:

18 Apr 2014 5:38:01pm

Hi harry, my goodness. You just refuse to get this issue. All members of Parliament have a duty to declare gifts over a certain value. Therefore, THEY MUST UNWRAP GIFTS to determine their worth. It is really as simple as this. You do not have to find out a gift's value because you do not have to declare its value. Now, read this a few times and repeat after me: The onus is on a politician to find out the value of a gift to determine if it has to be declared.

jack:

17 Apr 2014 7:11:00pm

I'm not condemning him, I'm just saying the rules are the rules. I know nothing about wine, but if I were ever to be elected I would just declare all gifts no matter their value. That way my large ass is covered. It's just prudent to be safe than sorry. Too busy to do it yourself, get an aide to do it for you and get them to sign off on it. No problems, just solutions.

Dove:

17 Apr 2014 10:08:27pm

Are you to convince yourself that he knew that is was a vintage and even the year without unwrapping it? If so you can add ESP to his long list of talents.

The man lied. He didn't say he forgot- he said he didn't, over and over again. First fail. Only when he was caught out did he come clean. No prizes for that. He's as crooked as the rest. It's amusing bordering on the pathetic to see people twist their arguments into knots to defend the Obeids, Macdonald's, Thomsons, Sinodinos and now O'Farrell's of this world.

harry:

18 Apr 2014 8:24:52am

The note attached to the gift would likely have directed BOF's attention to the age of the wine. If you send a gift with a nonobvious "extra" you make sure the recipient notices, after all he was receiving a bunch of stuff and rather busy.A note saying "Couldn't resist sending you this, vintage '59 just like you!" wouldn't have been amiss for a birthday present.

So much for the requirement of ESP. What you you have written?

You can only say you forgot if you remember. A person who doesn't remember can't tell the difference between "never happened" and "don't remember".

As he said, he would have remembered such a gift.

All I have done is come up with a scenario that would have applied in my household. I don't drink, neither does BOF, I live in a normal home, so does BOF, if I'd been elected Premier and received dozens of gifts, they would be lying around on top of the dining table, on the floor in the entry way, and on other tables.I'd be busy with my new job, come the weekend my wife would tell me she wants her house back, and that I need to get them out of the way. So I'd sit down and write a bunch of thankyous and stash the stuff in the cupboard under the stairs or in the one in the garage.

BOF had the additional stress of his father-in-law dying the week before, so there'd be lots of flowers and the requirement to "entertain" the wider family, so stuff was likely being shoved away the moment it arrived.

Totally plausible, nothing sinister need be invoked. He resigned because he gave incorrect evidence to the ICAC and understands that this is an untenable position for the Premier of the state.

DiogenesNT:

18 Apr 2014 5:31:27pm

Hi harry, and you know he did not unwrap the gift? Members of parliament are held to higher standards than we are due to their office. It was up to Barry O'Farrell to find out the value of the gift. 1959 should have at least been a bit of a hint don't you think? I don't drink wine either but anything older than 10 years usually comes with a higher price tag. 50 years should have been a dead give away. This kind of information is talked about at length even to the places I go.

Martin:

17 Apr 2014 7:46:41pm

His job was Premier of the state. That is the MOST responsible seat in the parliament (speaker aside). If the premier cannot play by the rules, who can? Clearly a new premier, after years in opposition, would expect some congratulations. And gifts that arrive via courier? Not declared? For any member to fail to forget to register any gift is not trivial. Be Lib, Lab, Nat, Grn, Pup or Other. Being "busy" is not an excuse. To me it appears as lack of respect to the parliment. For the public to have respect for the pollies, they have to get it through their thick heads that process is essential. If they can't look after it themselves, employ a minder. It is quite simple. That would avoid having a memory implosion before the wonderful ICAC.

harry:

18 Apr 2014 1:53:32pm

Just becoming Premier, father-in-law dying, massive demands on time, house in a mess. Perhaps "process" wasn't at the forefront of his mind. As for hiring a minder, perhaps you could petition and gather a groundswell of support to have the public pay for a butler to the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, otherwise these people are ordinary people in ordinary homes.

Reinhard :

Snufkin:

18 Apr 2014 8:51:14am

Exactly, MJ.You have identified the essential point and why he had to go. When the people's representatives are paid hundreds of thousands in public money, wield very significant power, are virtually guaranteed an extremely comfortable retirement, not only from parliamentary pensions, then they MUST be held to very high and unforgiving standards. This is (supposed to be) one of the differences between tin pot banana republics and democracies. The ICAC's powers should be extended, not limited.Have a good one.

LeeW:

18 Apr 2014 1:51:46am

The rusted on right apologists are out in force. You should leave the spin up to those that can come up with a believable line Giles. Defending the indefensible reflects upon you and your partisanship. He had to go because he lied under oath, and was caught out.

If you are looking for guidance on the subject I suggest you should first acquaint yourself with the philosophy of Occam's Razor. Einstein found it very helpful, maybe you can.

jennbrad:

18 Apr 2014 12:55:40pm

I'm far from being a "rusted on right", but I too can come up with scenarios that are less sinister. BOF was at work - for very long hours, getting a new government up. His wife at home - and still with the aftermath of her father's death the previous week - probably collected gifts left for either or both of them (and this one was probably addressed to both). Maybe she saved cards, maybe kept a list (just like Harry's wedding presents). But if BOF isn't a drinker an expensive bottle of wine would be as meaningless as a plaster of paris horse my parents got at their wedding.

I don't actually think he's a liar - but I do think in such circumstances it's always wise to say you simply say you don't remember, a lot was going on at the time, at home and at work and it's possible, but I still don't remember. Being too categorical is almost always a mistake.

harry:

18 Apr 2014 3:13:29pm

Agreed, he should have been more cautious with his denials, but it is likely that he looked at it logically, i.e. it would have been a memorable gift, I don't remotely remember it, hence it mustn't have happened. He is unlikely to remember details of what the house was like 3 years earlier, so he didn't rationalise how he could have received it and not seen it.

floss:

17 Apr 2014 5:01:46pm

Did he jump or was he pushed?

If this were a homicide investigation, at the very least, the authenticity of the note would be checked. There are still people out there who are very good at forgery, although cheques have gone somewhat out of favor these days.

mortan:

17 Apr 2014 6:07:23pm

I think he had enough the watch dog he nurtured turned on him a ripped him to pieces and there will be others from all sides they are all ducking for cover if you notice no trumpeting from labor on this one.

Macca:

17 Apr 2014 5:26:25pm

Harry, you are right an important man like Barry would receive so many gifts of vintage Grange that one more would hardly be menorable. Nick should have sent him a case, then he would have won the $1 billion contract he deserved and not the taudry $100 million contract that he got and the bringing down of an honest premier through a forgotten bottle would never have arisen. Sadly this honest ex-premier will from now on be forever known as one bottle Barry - I'm sure the ghosts of the Rum Core are having a great laugh about that.

harry:

17 Apr 2014 6:10:53pm

I agree completely Macca, the $100M contract was clearly corruptly given. A total disgrace and the people responsible for it should have be thrown in gaol and the key thrown away.By the way Macca, that contract was granted under Labor.BOF probably never opened the gift and hence wouldn't know that it was Grange.

Andrew:

18 Apr 2014 3:03:14am

Except for BOF wrote a thank you note in his own handwriting for the gift. It was not written for him by a staffer. And he didn't just say "I don't remember receiving a bottle of wine" or "I remember receiving a bottle of wine but didn't realise it was worth $3000", he denied ever having received a bottle of wine because he didn't want people to think he was connected to these corrupt scum bags. When the note surfaced, he was therefore shown to have PERJURED HIMSELF UNDER OATH.

This is not a matter, as people keep mistaking it or deliberately misportraying it, of forgetting to register a pecuniary interest (although he also neglected to do that). This isn't a matter of forgetting something (although BOF has tried to spin it that way). It is a matter of LYING UNDER OATH. If you or I did it in court we'd be prosecuted. But then, nobody is going to give you or me a $3000 bottle of wine either.

harry:

18 Apr 2014 8:32:15am

And as I've explained, it's something that could easily have happened in my household and the "$3000 bottle of wine" would right now be sitting, still wrapped, behind a bunch of bicycles on a shelf in the garage.

I would have written the "Thank you" based on the note attached to the gift which would have identified the sender. The note would have said something like "Couldn't resist sending you this, vintage '59 just like you, best wished on your birthday, regards Nick di Girolamo".

BOF isn't a drinker, the gift is a bottle of wine, he has enough info to pen his thanks. No need to unwrap it.So exactly how much impact would that have on me? None at all. I'd likely not remember it within the week.Ask me in a year and I wouldn't have a clue who sent me stuff let alone where I shoved it all.

Sir Trent Toogood:

harry:

17 Apr 2014 6:14:16pm

So tell us Trent, what is so implausible? It's exactly how gifts of plonk are treated in my house. They're shoved into a cupboard and not seen again unless we have forgotten to buy something for a function we are going to and need an emergency gift.

Dame Sark:

harry:

18 Apr 2014 8:34:43am

How would I know? The plausible scenario I explained that seemed to fly over your head involved me not opening the gift at all. I've got quite a few bottles (I assume champagne) still wrapped and in a cupboard. Wouldn't know if they were expensive or not.

Reinhard :

18 Apr 2014 11:37:58am

From Barry's note : "We wanted to thank you for your kind note + the wonderful wine, 1959 was a good year, even if it is getting even further away."So if it was "still wrapped and in a cupboard" how would he know the year?

harry:

18 Apr 2014 12:30:04pm

gee Reinhard, could it have been on the "kind note"?It's not like I haven't stated a few times already that I would have expected the note would have drawn attention to the vintage of the wine in case BOF missed it, since it was the particular novelty of the gift.

A note containing "Couldn't resist sending you this, vintage '59 just like you, best wishes on your birthday, regards Nick di Girolamo" would be pretty much what I would have sent.

harry:

18 Apr 2014 1:48:03pm

Yup, might have had something to do with being a little busy at the time having won an election 2 weeks prior, becoming premier, and having his father-in-law die the previous week. Most people wouldn't think a bottle of wine would be more than $500.

Reinhard :

Maude:

18 Apr 2014 4:19:40pm

Harry, BoF stated at ICAC he would remember receiving such a bottle of wine, had he done so.He denied emphatically and convincingly that he had received it. He never said he could not remember, and gave a good argument why he should remember it.You are using arguments that BoF shot down himself.

ocratato:

17 Apr 2014 5:57:36pm

I am inclined to think there is some probability that he was set up.

He seems to have been resisting the move to privatise everything not nailed down. The new premier will be much more likely to do Tony Abbott's wishes and rapidly start privatising the electricity network.(This can then be used to lock in long term coal contracts and keep renewables at bay.)

OUB :

17 Apr 2014 4:48:29pm

Sorry MJ, you'd have to move to NSW. No other State government is prepared to subject itself to similar risks.

Don't adopt the PUPs, they have a very limited lifespan. Shorter than ours anyway. It can only lead to heartbreak if you grow attached or, more likely, scarification of the ankles when you try to encourage the damn things to move next door. Or New Zealand.

pka:

Except that O'Farrell admitted that it was accurate after he saw the note, and he admitted he did actually meet with Nick Di Girolamo far more than he previously admitted.

Hard to call it a stitch up when the accused is admitting to everything.

Not to say that one should not always make sure that prosecuting bodies are free from corruption and have adequate checks and balances in place, but there is literally no evidence for that in this case.

MJLC:

Algernon:

17 Apr 2014 3:48:20pm

Di Girolamo has the potential to bring down two Premiers inside a year. Questions will now be asked about Di Girolamo's appointment to a SOC board and the remuneration that went with it. Significantly more than the other directors.

Really it's tip of the iceberg stuff, three central coast Liberal MP's to front ICAC in two weeks how many more Liberals are associated with the Obeids. After that they'll look at the other tory snouts.

Who'd have thought this was all meant to benefit the Liberals in the run up to the next state election.

Gary:

17 Apr 2014 6:44:07pm

They do say never set up a Royal Commission unless you know the outcome, it would now seem that there are more criminals on the right than on the left and they lost sight of that fact.If the LNP are not all sent to the cooler that should be sacked for forgetfulness or/and incompetence.

Brian Francis:

17 Apr 2014 3:55:20pm

Unfortunately the political parties seem to think that Government is in their realm of ownership, when in fact it is and will always be, that of the people. Whether it be corruption, scandal or jobs for the boys (and girls), political parties are quite wrong to think that they can get away with sucking the system dry. Government is a privilege granted by the population with an expectation of honesty and continuing regard for social needs. It is granted to a popular group of people on the basis that the promises made will be kept, the trust given will be a constant and the position whilst generally brief, will be recognised and supported by the public. All of these factors need to be revised.It is time that governments earned trust, dealt decisively and created a decent platform for society to progress. It is time for society to acknowledge and support government, interact with government with decency and go about their lives with an expectation that the job each person performs is no better or worse than that of a politician.We are fortunate in Australia to have a political system that allows for comment and criticism and this is something that generally provides for a more robust climate. However it is possible that should we continue bringing down Premiers and other members of parliament, whether it be deserved or not, we are on a slippery slide taking us into unknown territory.

a:

17 Apr 2014 4:29:41pm

the slippery slope you speak about is not taking down corrupt premiers and MP's it is allowing corrupt parties to rule. Democracy is more than 2 voices. The real crime is allowing one side to dictate laws and for the rest of the gang to do nothing, which is typical dumb and dumber politics. Money rules the parties and they were bought out years ago by foreign interests.

Brian Francis:

17 Apr 2014 4:56:50pm

'A'The point I was making was that for too long political parties have taken ownership of the country and it is in fact just a lease.People will and do, make mistakes and there should be a price to pay for that. I am not suggesting that anyone should 'get away' with anything.Just reading your own comments is point in question on how we are free to say what we want and that should be the way, however, no winners come out of a process that simply scores points against another, or brings down a Premier. My belief is that there is a long way for all of us to go to get the process of trust and faith back to the high place it once took.

Gary:

graazt:

17 Apr 2014 4:01:04pm

Thank you for your excellent and ongoing analysis.

Having an enforceable ministerial code of conduct will make the code a proper tool of governance, rather than something observed so frequently in the breach. Particular in these increasingly frugal times where public sector cuts see the scope for ministerial discretion expand accordingly. And in a growing neoliberal landscape where private businesses increasingly delivers services traditionally undertaken by government; with so much more potential for graft arising as an outcome.

I can't imagine how your average citizen would be opposed to the establishment of an equivalent institution for the federal jurisdiction; and yet it wouldn't be the first time people advocated against their own self-interest.

AT:

17 Apr 2014 4:02:47pm

I'm not sure if Quentin is saying that BOF was hard done by, but if even if there was something cavalier or even reckless in ICAC's pursuit of the wine it did reveal a character flaw in the former premier that would have remained "hidden" had ICAC been more "proper" in its treatment of BOF.

Given the deeper ICAC digs, the muddier it gets, maybe the best thing for NSW is for ICAC to investigate every rumour, every whispered accusation with the same gay abandon it has pursued this.

Whatever the case, it's quite appalling to hear the all current criticisms from Tories of ICAC. Oddly they couldn't find cause for complaint when it was Labor's shady characters being stat chambered by ICAC.

Ben the lawyer:

17 Apr 2014 4:03:36pm

I have to say I am not a massive fan of ICAC (even for situations like Obeid).

As a lawyer, I think we end up on a slippery path when we decide to do away with the rule of law. I personally would like to see ICAC (and the equivalent bodies elsewhere) shut down. If we can't prove that Obeid was corrupt in the normal investigation-charge-trial-sentencing way, then I don't think we should do it.

We give up too much of the basis of our system, and of western democracy, for not enough return, in my opinion.

It's not a fallacy. It's human nature to keep pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable. That's fine, you may think ICAC is the greatest thing ever, but it will inevitably lead to greater losses of freedom. Again, you may think it's justified. I just happen to disagree.

Dove:

kenj:

The "normal rules of evidence" don't apply when Centrelink is reviewing your weekly lodgement forms. It doesn't apply when the Tax Department asks you to confirm some details of your claim deductions.

You need to lose the precious attitude you've got about suspect rights and ICAC. Government ministers are being paid taxpayer dollars to carry out certain duties. The public, through ICAC, is entitled to make inquiries of them as to how they are conducting themselves. Since the working assumption is, and should be, that they are engaged in fully legal activities then they should have no grounds for refusing such an inquiry. If they don't like those conditions then they get out of public office.

Or would you rather see what we witnessed under the Bjelke Peterson and Askin governments? Brown paper bags stuffed with money handed in on a weekly basis from drug trafficking nightclubs and two up schools, the newspapers and the public aware of the rorts but having no public remedy since no-one can get prosecutable evidence outside of an inquiry agency like ICAC?

No legal process is perfect. But the public are entitled to install inquiry processes like ICAC to protect their interests. If the politicians don't like it then they can always get another job.

pb:

Snufkin:

18 Apr 2014 11:24:02am

I don't see that anybody's rights are being eroded by the ICAC. Obviously, neither did those who set it up. I don't see that the rule of law is compromised here, unlike in politicial attempts to introduce mandatory sentencing. The rules of evidence will still apply if alleged miscreants end up in court. It's up to the DPP to decide whether that happens or not. The ICAC is an investigative body which many see as an essential aid to our established legal system. It isn't held in total secrecy, the main criticism of a "Star chamber." It was designed to publicly uncover facts which might have remained hidden otherwise. The main democratic issue is that it behaves IMPARTIALLY. (Quis custodiet?)- It currently does seem to be operating without political bias. How can it be described as a threat to our personal freedoms? To those of "we the people", that is? Rather, it is the reverse. Those who wish to represent us in government need to behave scrupulously honestly, and also intelligently. If they do, they have little to fear from any investigation. Standards need to be vastly higher. If an ICAC can help, even in a small way to ensure this, that's a good thing.Have a good one.

Sir Robert of Lindsay:

17 Apr 2014 4:54:14pm

Really?

They still have to go through the "normal" courts if they face any charges. ICAC and RC's can't sentence anyone nor even find them guilty. As a "lawyer" (note the small"l") I'd have thought you'd be able to make that distinction

Weren't you in here a few weeks back cheering on the RC into pink batts and unions? What's changed your mind?

Ben the lawyer:

'They still have to go through the "normal" courts if they face any charges.'

Sure, but in the meantime people's names get dragged through the mud without due process.

'Weren't you in here a few weeks back cheering on the RC into pink batts and unions?'

I can't remember making a comment on pink batts (although perhaps I did). My point re the unions was that if there was that if a royal commission is ever justified, the situation with the unions does. I don't remember ever coming out in support of a RC generally. I would personally prefer that every corrupt union member was brought through the courts.

Ray:

17 Apr 2014 7:24:09pm

And I would prefer that every corrupt politician IS brought through the courts. Corruption happens when under the table deals are done for the benefit of both parties, too harangue 1 particular group of people is unjust. But what better way is there to deflect attention away from oneself when one wishes to appear to hold the higher moral ground? Constantly blaming someone else. IE Unions.BOF is the fall guy in this instance,deflection at its best.

kettles_away:

17 Apr 2014 10:21:17pm

Nice one Ben, you'd fit in nicely with the libs given your poor memory and recollection capabilities. If we could find your previous comments and tender them as evidence, would you then do the decent thing and resign from posting on these forums ;-)

OUB :

17 Apr 2014 5:09:10pm

I am a fan of ICAC I have to say. Even if they can't unearth evidence of a sufficient standard to lead to a conviction of some of the shady characters that work so hard to worm their way into the heart of our political system the ventilation does the system a world of good. The courts would struggle to perform the same task, you need Royal Commission powers. I am disappointed they seem to be relatively ineffectual in the Labor years. I can't believe money is less corrosive on that side of politics. But we have to wait until Labor are out of power to see the Obeid connections investigated. Why?

I am exasperated by O'Farrell's lapse. Why the hell didn't he ensure the register of pecuniary interests was updated to include such a substantial gift? The connection with a lobbyist made this much more dangerous. Not a hanging event but the strong denials after previous disclosure in the Tele should have put him on notice damaged him very badly. At least a staffer should have made enquiries of di Giralamo. He might have limped through the election but at what cost?

Ben the lawyer:

17 Apr 2014 5:29:15pm

'Even if they can't unearth evidence of a sufficient standard to lead to a conviction of some of the shady characters that work so hard to worm their way into the heart of our political system the ventilation does the system a world of good'

But that's the problem, isn't it? You have admitted that you like ICAC because it is too inconvenient to do it properly. Should we be so keen to throw away the principles that havce led to one of the best justice systems in the world?

OUB :

17 Apr 2014 6:02:02pm

I think you are looking at it from the point of the individuals subject to investigation. That is the usual lawyer's perspective. I am more appreciative of fleas being shaken out of the carpet now and then. Reducing the number of bites they put on the lower appendages of the NSW electorate through warning the politicians not to encourage the little buggers is more important to me. It might give us five years of relief.

kenj:

17 Apr 2014 7:58:27pm

"You have admitted that you like ICAC because it is too inconvenient to do it properly."

No, the bottom line is that without a coercive inquiry agency like ICAC corrupt officials will never be charged or brought to court. The types of offences we are talking about cannot be pursued by the police because they lack the organizational structure, the resources and the mandate to get to the bottom of suspicious behavior. Once a suspect tells them a plausible story in regard to an allegation they are required to assume its truthfulness unless some member of the public puts further evidence before them. However much they doubt the explanation they have to move on. ICAC, on the other hand, has the authority to overlook superficial and questionable accounts and force people to give details of meetings, phone calls, undertakings etc. The story is very simple. Public money requires public accountability. If they don't like it then the pollies don't take the job. ICAC is succeeding brilliantly.

Gary:

17 Apr 2014 6:52:32pm

If there is evidence of criminality I am sure that Obeid will be charged as the law requires.ICAC does not make the process faulty the only failure is ICAC needs to be better funded to root out the stench we have in Government and let the honest politicians get on with managing this nation for the benefit of the honest public.I do not see proper investigation affecting negatively on rule of law. If you have not commited a crime then how would it affect you.

GraemeF:

17 Apr 2014 4:13:47pm

I'm beginning to wonder if Barry was targeted because he blocked a coal mine. What other reason for this information to come out and the press having the information well in advance? Seems like a set up to me. The big story might be the internal ructions of the Liberals with their own Obeid like power brokers who didn't find a McDonald in O'Farrell.

MJLC:

17 Apr 2014 4:33:11pm

The Liberal mindset explained.

Given the choice between conspiracy and cock-up, refuse to accept that anything Labor are excellent at (that's cock-ups by the way - they're only mid-range hobbyists with just a handful of world's-best practitioners when it comes to conspiracy) could possibly be linked to your own mob.

Seriously Graeme, the bloke's on his way down to Centrelink next week because he's an idiot, not because he's Alfred Dreyfus reincarnated.

Brian Francis:

17 Apr 2014 5:11:42pm

MJLCYour anarchic view of the political world is interesting. However I'm not sure you are staying on subject when you refer to Mr.O'Farrell as an 'Idiot'.There has been some interesting circumstances in the sudden appearance of this said 'bottle of Grange' and, whilst I am not a believer in conspirators taking over the state, there may be some further questions to answer by those that new earlier.The real problem is that we are all losers from these events, even the anarchists.

MJLC:

(1) The man took an expensive bottle of wine and didn't declare it on the appropriate register. That's the behaviour of an idiot.

(2) The man claims he has no idea what happens to expensive possessions in his keeping. That's the behaviour of an idiot.

(3) The man knows there are questions coming at a very powerful, rigorous inquiry about wine gifts in general, and apparently makes no effort to thoroughly familiarise himself with his exposure to said commodity. That's the behaviour of an idiot.

(4) Following on from (3), without a definitive knowledge of the subject, he makes definitive answers. That's the behaviour of an idiot.

I assure you BF, use of the term "idiot" is indeed staying on subject.

"Interesting circumstances" and "sudden appearance(s)" count for nought here, and any thoughts of a pre-arranged conspiracy are ludicrous. The man is an adult - by definition he's responsible for everything that comes out of his mouth when being questioned under oath. No-one told him to say what he did.

Sir Robert of Lindsay:

hph:

18 Apr 2014 2:41:46pm

"Or the behaviour of a well practiced liar."

Well practiced liars must have a rock-solid memory. He remembers alright. He just didn't expect that someone would keep the hand-written 'thank you' note and make it available to the Commission with the details of the delivery service. Now that's stupid.

FalKirk:

18 Apr 2014 1:35:42pm

MJLC

O'Farrell is not an idiot as you so basely describe him. He is a decent but fallable human being.

He neither took any decisions not gained anything from the events being investigated by the ICAC. His carelessness in not registering the gift of wine, and then forgetting about it is odd but does not make him an idiot. Were it so the pavement would be strewn with idiots.

He did the honourable thing and resigned. The actions of an idiot?

Anyway as you are delving into the insult bucket lets just say if brains were taxable you would get a rebate.

hph:

hph:

17 Apr 2014 6:34:10pm

Oh dear me, Brian. Since when in the course of Human History we, the common people, have not been the losers? Countless common people, and yes those anarchists included as well, have lost their lives on the battlefields for those "idiots" because of those "idiots."

OUB :

Alpo:

17 Apr 2014 5:32:13pm

"Perhaps the Libs are too gentlemanly to throw a woman in the way of an imminent train wreck.".... Or perhaps they are so male chauvinistic that they wouldn't trust a woman even as they head for an inevitable train wreck: if a man can't save us, a woman is totally out of the question!

Alpo:

the nose:

17 Apr 2014 6:34:34pm

gerard, the Liberals with the help of their shock jock mates and the Murdoch trash news have demonized, women in the Labor party and the Greens to such an extent, that even they admit that they cannot risk having a female as the NSW premiere due to the fact that their moron support base, would punish them.

gerard oosterman:

17 Apr 2014 7:15:25pm

No, I don't believe that. The labor party is the caring party and far more caring and have had female premiers.You would not get the labor party demonising pensioners in order to get the budget in surplus.Hockey: The days of 'entitlements' are over. The liberals are now trying to get society to harass pensioners over their 50c cup-o-tea at the community centre or the one dollar scratchy they might sometimes squander. I really think there should be an embargo on male politicians for a few years and give females a free run like they (males) have had.

RupertsHackers:

17 Apr 2014 4:19:35pm

ICAC might also indirectly claim a few scalps in the media, with the immediate sidelining of award winning journo from The Australian, Ms Berbakov, who so angered Abbott with that corruption question yesterday. Today's edition of the Oz has no column from Ms Berbakov despite all her preparatory work yesterday. Instead it features the usual screamers with some air brushing (Barry was a good bloke etc) and to create some diversions (Its Labors fault). Moreover this self-serving rag didn't even have the decency to acknowledge that the Berbakov skirmish with Abbott even happened.

Tony M:

17 Apr 2014 5:03:49pm

The last thing I'd want to do would be to defend Murdoch and his newspapers. But there was a piece about this incident in James Jeffrey's "Strewth!" column in today's Australian. NB The name of the journalist in question is Berkovic, not Berbakov.

OUB :

Alpo:

17 Apr 2014 6:08:13pm

OUB, Rupert doesn't need RH's money, he subsidises his newspapers. In other words, he publishes them and he buys them...- Mr Rupert, here is today's The Australian for you.- Thanks Mr Rupert for your delivery, much appreciated, I love this newspaper.

Brian Francis:

17 Apr 2014 5:49:18pm

I was pleased to see our Prime Minister stand up against Ms.Berkovic. I think she had a big learning that day and perhaps the industry may see this as a watershed moment and create a foundation for better questions and decency.

Brian Francis:

18 Apr 2014 3:30:37pm

AlpoCouldn't agree more about asking as many questions as they can - no problem there. It's when the journalist becomes the story I query. Too many journalists think because they have formulated a result in their mind, it can therefore be shown to be true if a polly doesn't answer or indeed takes issue with the questioner.

FalKirk:

a:

17 Apr 2014 4:24:13pm

Did ICAC take down the Premier or did he take himself down? He quit the Premiership for lying and deliberately misleading the inquiry, when is he going to quit politics? He should be in jail, not getting overpaid to hide in the corner and say no more questions please. What scum.

Queensland must be corruption free, we havn't had an inquiry in 20 years and we wont for another 20 years under little hitler. Our CMC is there just for good looks and political witchunts.

Anastasios Manolakis:

The NSW ICAC public hearings exposes corruption by politicians to the public and it is the very nature of being public that the ICAC acts as a deterrent.

In contrast to the SA ICAC where corruption is not exposed directly to the public until/if ever the corrupt individuals are brought to justice.

So In SA the fraud committed by Howard, Downer and Brown against the SA Public hospitals is being kept from the public and the corruption continues. If the fraud was committed in NSW, Howard, Downer and Brown would have to give evidence in Public exposing the fraud.

It is time the SA ICAC Commissioner Justice Lander makes public the fraud.

Lindsay.:

17 Apr 2014 4:43:56pm

The Independent Commission Against Corruption did not take down the Premier of New South Wales, Barry O'Farrell. He did it to himself with the answers he gave to questions he was asked in an ICAC hearing. Before the hearing started nobody expected O'Farrell would have any problems at all with the questions he was to be asked.

Cherna:

17 Apr 2014 5:35:48pm

I find it passing strange that O'Farrell and Grinner both fell on their sword for trivial matters at best - the latter subsequently found that there was no case to answer - and yet Obeid Macdonald and Co continue to enjoy the fruits of their ill gotten gains.

It almost seems that ICAC have deliberately taken the path of least resistance and "got" the good guys and let the crooks go free.

Alpo:

17 Apr 2014 6:11:04pm

""got" the good guys and let the crooks go free.".... So, now you judge who are the "good guys" and who the "bad guys", cherna? You only trust the ICAC when they corner Labor people?.... Don't you think that that's a bit odd?

rabbie:

Andrew:

18 Apr 2014 3:22:10am

It's pretty simple Cherna. O'Farrell fell on his sword because he was publicly shown to have lied under oath for political advantage. Obeid and MacDonald may still be charged, we will see. ICAC has done its job with respect to Obeid and MacDonald and the rest is now up to the police. But no more than ICAC can charge Obeid and MacDonald can you blame ICAC for O'Farrell's self-inflicted political demise. Nobody made him blatantly lie under oath, nor did ICAC then produce the "smoking gun" note - that was Di Girolamo.

O'Farrell is not a good guy that ICAC has decided to attack because the bad guys are too hard. O'Farrell is a perjurer who lied on the witness stand. Being exposed as having done that publicly, his position became untenable and he resigned (which was the only proper thing for him to do).

Cherna:

well fellas (Alpo, rabbie and Andrew) I guess all is well within Labor ranks! Its business as usual (or is it corruption as usual?).

We have money stolen from people, and guess what? In 3 ICAC iterations no one has been charged for the loss in $millions of public funds.

Yet in 24 hours after BOF made a mistake, simply because he did not recall accurately, the State lost a premier who was righting the NSW ship towards honest dealings.

I find it strange that people want to get, condemn at and get rid of a Premier who by all accounts was doing a great job.

Where is the corresponding outrage towards the "bad" guys - those that has misappropriated public funds? My guess is that there be no outrage because these people were all power brokers within Labor ranks...

Reinhard :

18 Apr 2014 11:28:23am

"In 3 ICAC iterations no one has been charged for the loss in $millions of public funds. "ICAC only collects evidence of corruption and interviews witnesses, so if no-one has been charged blame the DPP & NSW Police

blackster:

17 Apr 2014 5:47:39pm

It's been going on for ever. Years ago I was a NSW Public Servant who proposed a prosecution for a "member of Sydney society" and true blue chap. The then Labor Premier despatched my Assistant Commissioner form Sydney to take my file and notes and tell me to pull my head in.So long ago it probably doesn't matter now and minor compared to the crooks getting away with figurative murder now. Will the "proceeds of crime" be invoked if any of the crooks get to the courts?

Serendipitous:

17 Apr 2014 5:59:24pm

I'm in SA so not overly familiar with the NSW scene. Having said that, I suspect the reason why O'Farrell fell on his sword so quickly is because he figured that if he hung around, his inability to remember in this instance, would be used to undermine his credibility in the run up to next year's election. In the words of the meerkat in the tv ads, "Sthimple".

Alison Cann:

17 Apr 2014 6:01:42pm

Quentin,The ICAC is showing Free Speech the way senator George Brandis wants Free Speech to be. The ICAC is about the ICAC excessing Free Speech and the people they question also excising Free Speech.Free Speech is a democratic right. Let us defend Free Speech, not condemn it.

Mental Midget 2014:

stephen:

17 Apr 2014 6:31:06pm

Yeah, someone else said that above, too ; you are right, but it does not excuse that the NSW Premier did not tell the truth when he said that he did not receive a bottle of wine.

And last night on Lateline, Mr. Henderson defended the Premier by saying that he - the Premier - did not lie, that he made a mistake as he did not remember what happened ... then Henderson proceeded to assume that someone would not lie because they may not have thought that they would not get caught ... in his case, the the Premier was innocent because he was misunderstanding of his motives .

But we are not ; I think that the Premier was wrong, and he in fact lied because he thought that he thought that he would not get caught.

mikk:

17 Apr 2014 6:33:38pm

I think we should have a royal commission into the previous government every time there is a new party voted in. Then we might start to get politicians who are motivated by service and honour and not greed and selfishness.

Baker Boy:

According to BOF:He get's a bottle of wine from NDG (gotta love these three letter acronyms)He forgets to register it (or he does not believe it is expensive enough to be registered?)He sends NDG a thank-you letterHe then completely forgets about the whole thing until the letter is produced at which stage he still claims not to remember it.

As someone of similar vintage to BOF I find this completely plausible (and quite a few other things that I have forgotten over the last week, let alone several years ago).

Tony Stott:

17 Apr 2014 7:26:21pm

I too question the use of the term "star chamber", but agree 100% with the increasingly tenatious actions of ICAC. I have witnessed clear cases of endemic corruption involving two NSW departments, which I expect will shortly come within the brief of ICAC, given that the culprits are at the highest level of the NSW public service.

As an observation, it has always been my view that corruption became with the arrival of the Rum Corps and never left.

Susan:

17 Apr 2014 7:52:15pm

To Ben the lawyer and others who think this demise is over a bottle of wine: it's not. It's symbolic of much larger corruption - there's a Pandora's Box that O'Farrell wants to keep a lid on. Meanwhile the ordinary thinking and concerned citizen continues to campaign for the rights of all residents to clean, uncontaminated drinking water and uncontaminated food producing land. Let's applaud ICAC for its role in unravelling the tangled web of cover ups and cronyism that is sabotaging good management of our natural resources.

awake:

17 Apr 2014 8:18:21pm

Thank you Quentin Dempster. National ICAC is indeed required. Too often have these people rorted us and the system. Time is up. ICAC is the way to go.

Life is tough out there for all of us, but those pigs with their nose in the trough must go Liberal or Labour. We have been mushrooms for too long. I hope they all go to jail and their assets given to people most in need.

Kitty:

17 Apr 2014 8:33:31pm

There is much more to this than "I don't recall" the wine.O'Farrell would not have resigned if it was just a case of faulty memory. He insisted and lied for a reason.Politicians and governments are on the nose and without doubt there is self interest and corruption.ICAC is a necessary body to hold politicians and governments to account it should be there in every state and federal.Secrets, lies and self interest have left politicians with no honour or trust.Thank you for this informative article.

James Hunter:

17 Apr 2014 9:01:08pm

Fantastic article, as is the fantasy that the many culpable members of Government and its instrumentalities seem to think they can get away with this for ever. Rabbits son, lot of rabbits in NSW ( and the rest of the states) son !!

CJB22:

17 Apr 2014 9:25:25pm

I have no problems with ICAC providing an institutional and political challenge to the state of New South Wales, or more correctly its government. History has shown us that decisions made in the halls of power therein are often made, not for the benefit of the people of NSW but for the benefit of the elected representatives. The next challenge is to make the repercussions of getting caught severe enough to have some real deterrence value. At present, the slap on the wrist with a leaf of limp lettuce just doesn't cut it. It is about time the proceeds of crime legislation that takes the money and assets off criminals should be applied equally to elected representatives who use their power for their own benefit. It is after all stealing, no more, no less. Criminals in the real world would go to jail for crimes of the magnitude we are hearing about. Why not politicians?

CJB22:

Coogara:

17 Apr 2014 10:00:14pm

While all of this is depressing, I agree with Quentin's positive assessment that we will have even stronger processes in place in future to prevent corruption happening. Hopefully this will include something about the acceptance of gifts which will go beyond placing such gifts on a register. We don't provide substantial gifts to any public service member without such an action as being seen as corrupt, so the same should apply to MPs.

Robert2:

17 Apr 2014 10:14:42pm

"The Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales is turning into a subversive force". My thoughts are that you a grossly out of touch with reality if you believe what you have written there Quenton. I cannot accept that the flow of information as made public, was deliberately choreographed to "overthrow the government, overturn or upset the way business is done in this duristiction", apart from exposing the machinations that were an obvious component of what is commonly known as "collusive proceedings".

O'Farrell is a victim of his own destiny. By being as emphatic as he was in his verbiage used when questioned, along with his adamant demeanor, BOF set in stone his irreversible path and his self exposure locked him into a state of irrevocability. BOF, like many others in life created his own dilemna, and like many others he and he alone should suffer the consequences of his own duplicious behaviour and speech. History one expects, will not be kind to BOF. No tears from the greater population for being exposed as untruthfull. No tears for telling untruths to accepted legal authorities that is doing exactly what it was set up to do, to root out corrupt practices and or behaviour, that eventually could devalue the lives of every New South Wales individual, before, hopefully the criminal practices and or behaviour become entrenched.

If Barry O'Farrell was not guilty of breaching recognised ethical codes and standards he would still be the Premier. He supposedly, for the want of a more engratiating term by his cohorts, "fell on his sword". Barry O'Farrell has assured us of his guilt in this matter, but what are we going to be exposed to by the ICAC investigations that so activated the necessary self sacrifice we have witnessed over the past couple of days.

rockpicker:

17 Apr 2014 11:35:38pm

Quentin, this is sheer hypocrisy. You have been part of these enquiries for years an made your deserved reputaion from them. They catch people who are crooks. Greiner was the first, and he was acting in a very dubious way. I am happy to see the rocks turned over and the low life beneath them given a good dose of insecticide be they LNP or Labor.

punch:

Ray Manta:

18 Apr 2014 12:14:08am

Former Victorian Liberal premier Jeff Kennett has accused ICAC of entrapment. He is typical of lots of Liberal Party honchos who are now trying to shoot the anti-corruption watchdog for interfering with their born-to-rule mindset. Dempster's article makes it quite clear that ICAC was not aware of the 'thank you' card on the first day of BOF's testimony. Thus any allegation of entrapment is simply Liberal Party mischief, which itself suggests that the Liberals are not yet inclined to reform themselves to meet the standards the public expects.

GrumpiSkeptic:

18 Apr 2014 12:34:19am

What is going on here? A "STAR CHAMBER"? Why are some commentators, including Mr. Dempster, calling the ICAC a Star Chamber?

Is it because it is stuffing up too many people, especially politicians' careers? Is it because it is going beyond its mandates? Is it because it is becoming a scatter gun? Or is it because it has done an excellent job in chasing crooks and exposing corrupt behavious?

It is interesting that Bruce Baird, a respected politician with a balanced views of the world, and the father of the new NSW Premier, came out and accused the ICAC of turning into a Star Chamber! Perhaps the ICAC is so effective in doing what it is meant to do, it has got politicians worried that the sniffer dog (meant no offense to the ICAC there) is too good at picking out the hidden packages, the handlers are attempting to rein it in?

I do find the term Star Chamber rather offensive to the ICAC. When President Clinton was relentlessly pursued by that Starr guy for his sexual misconducts, it did turn into a Star Chamber for it was doing the dirty work for the Republicans. I can't see any hint of political favour with the ICAC as both major political parties are getting a decent looking into.

Of course, when the NSW ALP got its guts opened up, many commentators thought corruptions only can happen to the ALP. Lo and behold, now it is the LNP's turn to get a up close and personal check up, and it turned out its guts is a bit suss as well.

$3,000 bottle of fermented grape juice costs a competent premier's job. It is sad but such is life. Perhaps politicians should reject any gifts in future.

Skeptical Observer:

18 Apr 2014 1:41:36am

"Star Chamber" is a bit of journalistic licence - it is well and truly open to the public.

Much as I oppose his politics, I do feel sorry for Mr Farrell. It really does appear that he underestimated the value of the wine he was given, and after giving a strong PUBLIC denial in court and after - he was then trapped.

Nick Greiner was another valuable casualty caught up, and later exonerated.

Politics is about perception, hence the unhealthy symbiosis with the media.

The concern now will be that the NSW Liberals will now move to emasculate ICAC, and emulate the egregious behaviour of the Queensland Government. This must be resisted at all costs as ICAC is the premiere anti corruption body in the world at present. That it makes some good politicians continued political life untenable is not a reason for its destruction, but a reflection on media driven political process. Without it the Strathfield Catholic corruption clique would never have been exposed.

I am sure most rational people would support the greens proposal for a federal body with the same powers - they do occasionally say sensible.

nospoon:

18 Apr 2014 1:50:17am

Why keep the 'thank you' note? Are you kidding? If certain types provide you with a 'gift', an interest free loan, the tuition fees for your daughter to attend a private school, a nice expensive prezzy etc, etc; you can bet they are going to keep the evidence of the 'favour' so that they can call in the the debt at a later date. That's how it works. That's the crux of all this. That's corruption. "Nice little government you've got going here. Wouldn't want any thing bad to happen to it, now would we..."

tomtoot:

A very intriguing title for a topic:- The star chamber that took down a premier

"The Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales is turning into a subversive force.

To be 'subversive' in this context means to overthrow, overturn or upset the way government business is done in this jurisdiction.

Such is its current power through various tactics and coercive techniques, there is now a backlash. Because of this, the ICAC and its investigators cannot afford to make any mistakes. "

How does the above compare to the Wiki determination below:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster from the late 15th century until 1641. It was made up of Privy Councillors, as well as common-law judges and supplemented the activities of the common-law and equity courts in both civil and criminal matters. The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts would never convict them of their crimes.

Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.

In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. The inherent lack of objectivity of politically motivated charges has led to substantial reforms in English law in most jurisdictions since that time.

Zany:

18 Apr 2014 6:49:56am

WHO leaked the note to ICAC and why was the Premier set up. What faction of the party had most to gain. This should be investigated by the party as it goes to the stability of the new government and the party.

FlapDoodle:

18 Apr 2014 7:12:54am

Mr. O'Farrell accepted a bottle of very expensive wine from a lobbyist representing a business seeking to expand the scope and value of a relationship. As far as I am aware, Mr. Di Girolamo has not stated he was in the habit of gifting things to all and sundry and for no particular reason.

I am a supporter of ICAC but am somewhat amazed that elected officials accepting gifts from actual and/or potential business partners is not considered a form of corruption.

Mr. Dempster's use of the term ?Star Chamber? suggests to me that he, like many of his media colleagues, believes firstly that the gifting of the wine in the circumstances described was not inappropriate or corrupt and secondly that ICAC has exceeded its legislated remit in exposing the gifting which I understand Mr. O'Farrell failed to declare at the time.

For whatever reason Mr. O'Farrell failed to correctly answer the ICAC question. It is not the value of the gift or how it was received which is the benchmark here, it is whether a publicly elected official accepted a gift from a business lobbyist and compounded the error by failing to report the matter through a well-established procedure which he must have known about.

I think ICAC has acted appropriately as has Mr. O'Farrell, rather belatedly, in resigning as Premier. I think Mr. O'Farrell should also resign his seat in parliament as the whole saga appears to demonstrate a cavalier attitude, at best, to his responsibilities to the people of his electorate and the wider State in general.

Big M:

Snufkin:

18 Apr 2014 7:28:11am

Thank you for an excellent article. There are many contributing factors to the current unsatisfactory situation.Not all of these can be easily or quickly fixed. Parties and candidates need money for campaigning which is perhaps the main reason why the ALP finds it so difficult to genuinely distance itself from union influence. The Lib/Nats similarly depend upon donations. Our democracy-limiting two party system has recently had some honest competition from the Greens which is a good thing, yet all three of these main players have been critical of Palmer and his money. Despite their complaints, the Greens themselves have received a record sum. As for lobbying, is hard to see how it can be limited or even if it should be, but transparency can and should be enforced and enhanced. Whistle-blower protections, especially for public servants, should be improved and reinforced. Like many australians I would like to see minimum four year fixed terms state and federally, and an end to compulsory voting. "Rusted on" supporters also contribute to the problem. As Tony Windsor said a few years ago: "If they know they'll get your vote anyway, why would they bother earning it" (words to that effect). He was referring to the Nats but the principle applies across the board. He was an early casualty, but good on "Kermit" Greiner for setting up the ICAC in the first place. As for the ALP, I would love to see nakedly ambitious, manipulative opportunists like Shorten replaced by genuinely ethical ALP members such as John Faulkner. It is also quite sickening to hear the NSW opposition leader holding forth when according to Aaron Patrick he was a visitor to Obeid's ski lodge and also failed to report the small matter of a $3000,000 bribe attempt. "I will not be lectured by this man?"Have a good one.

shed bloke:

18 Apr 2014 7:53:43am

Despite impolitic , if not corrupt, behaviour being readily exposed on both sides of politics by ICAC , the greater mass of the NSW electorate continues to vote sequentially either lib or lab. And this despite the voting laws in this state allowing you to park your 1 anywhere else on the voting paper and it will still be valid.The greater crime is the outright stupidity, ignorance and carelessness of the populace at large , who will continue to get the government they deserve, and impose same on those with more tender attributes.No wonder more sheds needed to house the depressed.

Breach of peace:

18 Apr 2014 7:53:53am

There is no other avenue or instrument to have the checks and balances required for corruption in politics concerning gifts and donations which are in essence bribes. Bribery has been running rampant for decades and it needs to stop if we are to call ourself a democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery

Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient's conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or merely a promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.[1] It has no place in politics!

Politicians have been dancing around this for decades calling it a donation or a gift but in fact it is simply bribery. The public has been calling on the political system to stop donations and large funding to the political parties as there is a clear 'Conflict of interest" in law. It is "subversive" to democracy, the rule of law, due process that is open, fair and accountable. Have not the actions been subversive by dealing with these questionable people and placing them in positions of undue influence? There are simply doing their job as required in legislation. Of course the politicians will cry out as they have been on a milking cow but the teat needs to dry up ASAP for the benefit of democracy.

Greg:

18 Apr 2014 7:55:19am

Yes the thank-you note proves that O'Farrell knowingly received the "wonderful" wine which, as he had already said, nobody could ever forget -- but more to the point it proves that "Baz and Rosemary" had a much closer and more informal relationship with "Nick and Jodie" than the Premier had been trying to imply. Plenty of questions remain to be answered about that relationship. I doubt that we yet know all, or even most, of the reasons behind the resignation.

lilly:

18 Apr 2014 7:55:46am

Nick Di Girolamo needs to keep with the times. Nowadays bribery is done with offers of lucrative positions after you leave government. This way nothing needs to be declared on the Pecuniary Interests Register and there's no physical proof that a bribe ever took place. Its just a one on one conversation with hints of future roles in the company. This then magically materializes into a plum job when they leave politics providing the decision went the right way.

rabbie:

18 Apr 2014 10:41:55am

tomtoot, I am sure that he didn't forget anything, even writing the thank-you note. What he didn't know was that the note had been kept and was going to be produced.

I received a bottle of Grange Hermitage as a present from a good friend over 30 years ago. I remember receiving it. I also remember drinking it, where I drunk it and with whom several years later. I have received several bottles of wine as presents in my life, but I do remember the Grange Hermitage more than any other.

Pedro Pesce:

BOF is on the other side of my political fence, however he is one of the least noxious and obnoxious of his fold and I feel sorry for him in this outcome.

It's thus a shame that a man with at least the public perception of integrity and decency must be lost over what really is, in the hub-hub of political life, a relatively small matter.

What does beg the question though is the rapidity of this resignation. Is it really due to this man's much vaunted integrity; or is it a subterfuge all about preventing something more odious coming to light? The ICAC continues and it will be interesting to see what unfolds.

It will not only be the ALP that now finds it hands tied in getting too sanctimonious and 'holier than thou' about corruption. This may not spike the LNP guns, but it is certainly going to dampen their powder. I can recollect a couple of Liberal premiers that also did gaol time; and a few more that should have.

Bjelke-Petersen for instance would have been imprisoned on far more serious matters had he been tried in any other state than Qld due to the 'unanimous guilty' jury requirement for conviction there. 11 of the jury said 'guilty', but he escaped his just desserts on this technicality. Just imagine if our democratic voting system required the same 'unanimous' dynamic!

Certainly the ALP does not have the monopoly on criminal activity in politics. When you look at the two cases exampled - BOF and JBP - side by side, and add the Greiner ICAC case for good measure; one has to seriously question if our justice system really does deliver for the people. Bit more like fishing by hand: can land the easy ones or the inedibles, the slippery ones mostly get away.

Steve_C:

18 Apr 2014 10:08:09am

"It was pleasing to see that Australia did not rate a mention on that index. The pain we are going through at the moment will help to keep us off any future index."

But Quentin... the reason the rest of the World doesn't rate our own home grown and quite extensive crop of corrupt, morally and ethically repugnant piles of excessively wealthy and power driven human effluent, is because Australia still doesn't realise how insignificant our Nation is to those who live elsewhere on the Planet.

The reason the rest of the Planet couldn't give a rats' about our little land of Aus, is that the rest of the world is infected with exactly the same "me, me, me and only me" disease that's got so many Australians in it's grip.

Knowing that, could alter the thrust of your final statement of "future satisfaction" that can be gained from watching current events at ICAC unfold.

Perhaps, it might be best to not EVER let one's need for vigilance wane even the tiniest little bit, lest it be seen as the 'chink' in one's impregnable armour - even if it is just a momentary pat on the back for a future that's born out of the pain of today...

Jack Tar:

18 Apr 2014 11:14:54am

As others have said it wasn't the Plonk that got BOF but the vehement denials. A sad error of judgement that once again others have shown could have been handled better, and seriously reduced the fall out.

However what intrigues me is why Nick Di G kept that thank you note for so long, and was able to produce it at the drop-of-a-hat.

I don't suppose for a moment that BOF is the only one to have neglected to record a "gift" in the register, nor will he be the last, and that there is some frantic searching going on in various cupboards over Easter, not to mention late entries in the register.

There is room for a serious education plan for our elected representatives regarding the relationships between Politicians and Lobbyists.

Observer:

18 Apr 2014 12:10:28pm

Now that the bottle of wine affair is being bounced around maybe a list of other affairs involving the ALP and the Unions could be analysed in depth?

I understand that a witness and suspect in a certain AWU slush fund and related matters has been called in again by Victoria Police Fraud Squad and he will be the first of the suspects to be charged, a former prime minister is also one of the suspects.

Reinhard :

18 Apr 2014 1:01:08pm

Many on the right want to argue that O'Farrell has been forced to resign over the trifling matter of his memory of an undeclared bottle of expensive plonk, but it goes much deeper than that. O'Farrell must have had knowledge of $72K in donations from AWH to the NSW Libs , and he was the one who approved the contract with AWH that followed in 2012, giving AWH 25-years exclusive rights to project manage over $500m worth of water infrastructure.

aGuy:

The only way to get rid of the corrupt in politics is by not supporting those who may be corrupt.

Its so normal for mates to be put into safe seats and the public votes them in again and again.

Having not kept an eye on NSW politics, I am not sure which party is worse over there. Federally, Bill Shorten who's Mother in Law became GG when he was a Senior Minister and Tanya Plibersek who's husband gained an unadvertised position for the NSW Department of Education despite having a drug conviction that would make him unable to be a teacher raise at least an eyebrow.

Palmer has so many business interests that may conflict and Slipper believes wine tours around Canberra are suitable for the public to pay.

Australian politics is far more suss than most would like to admit. Although all of the above has no conviction of illegal dealings (thus still legal), its not as open and honest as I would desire.

FredN:

18 Apr 2014 3:27:04pm

Nobody is asking, so I will.

Nobody looses a $3000 bottle of Grange.

Despite what Gerard Henderson says, almost nobody drinks a 50+ year old bottle of grange, or if they did, do they throw away the bottle? Remember BOF is a politician. He is on, maybe $500,000 a year for as long as he keeps the job, not a multi-billionaire celebrity who uses $50 notes to snort coke. A $3000 bottle of Grange is not insignificant.

If he did just crack open a $3000 bottle of '59 Grange and chug-a-lug it down without remembering it, he is a total tosser and shouldn't be a state premier. You are well off without him.

Maynard:

18 Apr 2014 3:42:53pm

perhaps this little episode of the bottle of whine will throw a spotlight on the broader use of PPPs. specifically the fiction that a successful PPP entity has picked up the risk of a project from the government. the whole ediface of PPPs is brought down when this risk transfer is seen for what it is ie the emporer having no clothes and the successful PPP entity having escaped with the gold.the current practice of PPPs is absolute nonsense covering billions of government expenditure and very few bottles of whine.

Robert2:

18 Apr 2014 5:41:52pm

The scenario is active within other elements too Emil Saarloos. Historically, if an individual needs to be demonised, if that individual is active from a political base the vested interest types will criminalise the individauals activities. If the person is from a criminal base the vested interest types will politicise the motives or actions.

The actions and reactions a pretty much a part of the culture that has dominated Australia since the very early days. The main one who has had history rewritten about him is most definitely John MacArthur I believe, and it is not hard to imagine who the class was that was driving that little gem.